POSITION PAPER

Republic of the Philippines

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD
Cordillera Administrative Region
Baguio City
Case No.: 98-01-1161
In Re: APPLICATION FOR SALE AND
TRANSFER OF A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE TO OPERATE A PUJ
SERVICE with EXTENSION OF VALIDITY

HOMER H. BELARDO- Applicant vendor

ROLAND C. LACAMBRA- Applicant vendee

LOURDES P. BELARDO
ELIZABETH P. BELARDO
ROLANDO P. BELARDO
EDWIN P. BELARDO
Oppositors
x--------------------------------------------x

Resolution
Applicant filed an application for sale and transfer of a certificate
of public convenience to operate a PUJ service with extension of
validity with this office on September 24, 2012 on the ground that the
same was sold through a Deed of Sale duly executed and submitted to
this office. On October 12, 2012, an opposition was filed by the heirs of
the late Homer Belardo alleging that the deed of sale was falsified
hence the application should be dismissed.

This office has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity or invalidity

of the deed of sale as basis for the application for sale and transfer.

The parties filed a case in court for the annulment of Deed of Sale
and damages which was raffled in the Regional Trial Court branch 60
of Baguio City under Civil Case no. 8154-R. Hence, the application was
suspended pending the resolution of the case;

On March 22, 2018, the applicant through counsel filed a motion to

resolve and was set for hearing on March 27, 2018. During the hearing,
the parties and their respective counsels appeared before this office
and a possible settlement was agreed upon by both parties. This, in line
with the fact that the oppositors never refiled the necessary cases in the
court of jurisdiction pertaining to the vailidity of the deed of sale. In so
far as this office is concerned, the deed of sale remains valid since no
order from a competent court was issued, nullifying the same. Article
1305 of the Civil Code defines a contract as “a meeting of minds
between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the
other, to give something or to render some service.” As long as there is
1|Page
 POSITION PAPER

an agreement or a meeting of minds regarding the obligation to give

something or to render service, the law considers it as a contract. In
order for the contract to be valid, it must be made with the consent of
the contracting parties, there must be an object that is the subject of
the contract, and a cause of the obligation (Article 1318, Civil Code).

Hence, on April 12, 2018, the oppositors file a motion for

withdrawal of their opposition which states among others that:

“as surviving heirs of the deceased and the remaining

oppositors in the instant case, they have thus met and entered into a
settlement of their claims with applicant Roland C. Lacambra and
spouse Teresita Belardo.

WHEREFORE, in view of the settlement entered into between

the parties, movants Elizabeth Belardo and Edwin Belardo hereby
WITHDRAW their Opposition to the application of the respondents.”

Evidently, there is no longer any basis to go further with the

opposition in so far as this application is concerned.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby resolved that:

1. The opposition filed in this case be withdrawn from the

records; and
2. The application for sale and transfer of a Certificate of Public
Convenience to Operate a PUJ Service with Extension of
Validity be given due course,

Done this ____ day of January 2019, Baguio City, Philippines.

IDOL JESSIE BALAGOT

DIRECTOR

2|Page